I am gay. Those are the words that have been so difficult for me for so long. But I am gay, but it is something that is personal and I don't believe — I felt with my heart being gay … did not effect, would not effect how I do my job. What happened through my own actions the other night changed all that.
ON HIS VOTING RECORD
My votes reflect the wishes of the people in my district. And I have always felt tha tmy faith and allegiance was to the people there in the district, my constituents. So as each of these individual measure came before the legislature, I cast "no" votes. … I cherish the fact that we have a remarkable system of government, and that system of government provides for representatives elected by the people to go to the legislative bodies, whether it be Washington D.C. or Sacramento, and cast votes on behalf of the people, not my own point of view, not my own internal conflict, certainly to use my best judgment, but to vote as my constituents would have me vote. There's never been a doubt in my mind on the position of the vast majority of the people in my district, the 18th senatorial district, on these different issues. I voted as I felt I should on behalf of the people who elected me.
This argument against the “slippery slope” position is often mischaracterized. Many times, like with Tony Jones response to it, an example of one fallacious argument (micro) is applied to the whole (macro). With same-sex marriage often times I hear the cross-species example thrown around in the same sentence with polygamy. This is merely a red-herring. Dennis Prager has made it a point to show, by applying the same arguments that same-sex proponents use, that if one is allowed the other follows. In fact, this has been proven to be the case in its early murmurings. On the Michael Medved show Michael had on people from who support legal cases against states that have legalized same-sex marriage saying they are discriminating against polygamous marriages. This is not a slippery slope argument. Take note:
It is the state condoning an action by authorizing an action. An example. Running red-lights is prohibited by the law, so society says to run them causes damage and should be prohibited. Society also says that children raised by their mother and father is the best of all possible scenarios so we will support male/female marriages and give tax breaks so that the nuclear family can succeed in spending money on itself. The courts can intervene in divorce mainly due to the involvement of children. One well-known/respected homosexual sociologist and psychologist Paul Nathanson says as much:
This is the same argument against polygamous marriage as well, that is: multiple persons involved in “marriage” creates undue competition and strife that is harmful to the child. Many examples of this being the case are in books and interviews found in plenty and it is not my position here to point the reader to them.
IF marijuana is legalized, will use of it increase or decrease? WHEN abortion was legalized federally, did abortion increase or decrease? If society decreases the importance of the ideal situation for raising children, will society lose or strengthen the importance of raising them? As homosexual radio show host Al Rantell points out:
One other aspect Tony and other emergents seem to forego in their apparent arguments for same-sex marriage and arguments against polygamous marriage is precedence. One commentato on a Prager article said this:
This is important. Whereas polygamy can be argued in a culturally relativistic way (something emergents generally accept), same-sex marriage cannot. Which indicates to me that there is something more political behind this movement due to its taking positions far from its stated “cultural truth” ethos or epistemology. Another aspect that is often ignored is general revelation as found in Natural Law. Keep in mind it is this language and worldview that the founding documents of this country were written (including the Constitution) and that many of the emergents preach under. (I say “preach under” because they live under it influence and should consider its original intent... culturally.) Here is a response to a question I posted quite some time ago:
The homosexual man or woman is just as much a sinner as you or me. We all need Christ. To touch on the hell issue first, I believe hell is a testament to free-will, and dignity as well. C.S. Lewis mentioned that hell is locked from the inside. The only thing separating mankind from God is a belief in the finished work on the Cross. By choice people reject their Creator, they choose their path, God never imposes it. Many who are saved are not immediately pure in action, nor will they ever be. Sometimes people take decades to work through their faults (counseling, prayer, reading God’s Word, etc), so just like the person who may cheat on his wife regularly, when he comes to a saving knowledge of God, he will be challenged to change his ways and seek counseling and prayer and reference from God’s Word. The same with a gay man or woman. If they truly have a saving knowledge of God, they will be challenged by the Holy Spirit to seek biblical guidance in their life, and like many others, they will turn away from their homosexual lifestyles.
However, there is a “created order,” or, even a natural order (if you do not believe in God). My argument for heterosexual (between a man and a woman) unions is usable both by the atheist (non believer in God) and the theist (a believer in God – in the Judeo-Christian sense). Here is the crux of the matter in regards to “nature’s order:”
So you see, the two heterosexual organisms that join in a sexual union cease being two separate organisms for a short time and become one organism capable of reproduction. This is what the state and the church are sealing in a marriage, this intrinsic union. The homosexual couple can never achieve this union, so “natures order” has endowed the heterosexual union with an intrinsic quality that other relationships do not have or could never attain. Both the atheist and theist can argue from this point, because either we were created this way or we evolved this way. Either way, nature has imposed on the sexual union being discussed.
Also, I do not think it is wholly genetic. I believe choice is involved as well as violence. For instance, take this thought from a pro-choice, lesbian woman, Tammy Bruce:
“ . . . . and now all manner of sexual perversion enjoys the protection and support of once what was a legitimate civil-rights effort for decent people. The real slippery slope has been the one leading into the Left's moral vacuum. It is a singular attitude that prohibits any judgment about obvious moral decay because of the paranoid belief that judgment of any sort would destroy the gay lifestyle, whatever that is…. I believe this grab for children by the sexually confused adults of the Gay Elite represents the most serious problem facing our culture today. . . . Here come the elephant again: Almost without exception, the gay men I know (and that’s too many to count) have a story of some kind of sexual trauma or abuse in their childhood -- molestation by a parent or an authority figure, or seduction as an adolescent at the hands of an adult. The gay community must face the truth and see sexual molestation of an adolescent for the abuse it is, instead of the 'coming-of-age' experience many [gays] regard it as being. Until then, the Gay Elite will continue to promote a culture of alcohol and drug abuse, sexual promiscuity, and suicide by AIDS.”
What she is basically saying is that there are emotional reasons, usually trauma, or circumstances that push these young boys into the choices they make in regards to their sexuality. For instance, one of my co-workers is a homosexual man. He is a wonderful guy; I would invite him to my wedding if I could go back in time. He is very open about his past, he was “initiated” into the homosexual lifestyle by a grown black man when he was 14. In other words, he was raped. Whether he feels now that he consented, or the person was a family friend or complete stranger. This act of sex with a minor by a grown man is rape. And this rape, at an age where boys are having surges of hormones and confused about a lot of things is what Tammy Bruce was speaking to. It is a psychological trauma that if not dealt with has traumatic results in one’s life. This sometimes works its way into sexual matters. There are many homosexual people, Al Rantel (790am 6pm to 9pm), to name a more popular one, that believe marriage should be kept between a man and a woman. Tammy Bruce wants it, but she, like most Republicans, want the states to decide, and not the Supreme Court.
Also, in 1993, the biggest march by the “gay” community (Elite gay community) on Washington was held, and they had this as part of their platform:
The implications of homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered curriculum at all levels of education.
The lowering of the age [12 years old to be exact] of consent for homosexual and heterosexual sex.
The legalization of homosexual marriages.
Custody, adoption, and foster-care rights for homosexuals, lesbians, and transgendered people.
The redefinition of the family to include the full diversity of all family structures.
The access to all programs of the Boy Scouts of America.
Affirmative action for homosexuals.
The inclusion of sex-change operations under a universal health-care plan.
Obviously the Elite gay community Tammy Bruce spoke of knows which age is best for “recruiting,” e.g., traumatizing.
More can be said on all the above issues, but my book is not yet written. I will post three quotes from Tammy Bruce (a pro-choice lesbian):
Even if one does not necessarily accept the institutional structure of “organized religion,” the “Judeo-Christian ethic and the personal standards it encourages do not impinge on the quality of life, but enhance it. They also give one a basic moral template that is not relative,” which is why the legal positivists of the Left are so threatened by the Natural Law aspect of the Judeo-Christian ethic. (Tammy Bruce, The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left’s Assault on Our Culture and Values [Roseville: Prima, 2003], 35.)
...these problems don’t remain personal and private. The drive, especially since this issue is associated with the word “gay rights,” is to make sure your worldview reflects theirs. To counter this effort, we must demand that the medical and psychiatric community take off their PC blinders and treat these people responsibly. If we don’t, the next thing you know, your child will be taking a “tolerance” class explaining how “transexuality” is just another “lifestyle choice”.... After all, it is the only way malignant narcissists will ever feel normal, healthy, and acceptable: by remaking society - children - in their image (Ibid., 92, 206)
... and now all manner of sexual perversion enjoys the protection and support of once what was a legitimate civil-rights effort for decent people. The real slippery slope has been the one leading into the Left's moral vacuum. It is a singular attitude that prohibits any judgment about obvious moral decay because of the paranoid belief that judgment of any sort would destroy the gay lifestyle, whatever that is…. I believe this grab for children by the sexually confused adults of the Gay Elite represents the most serious problem facing our culture today.... Here come the elephant again: Almost without exception, the gay men I know (and that’s too many to count) have a story of some kind of sexual trauma or abuse in their childhood -- molestation by a parent or an authority figure, or seduction as an adolescent at the hands of an adult. The gay community must face the truth and see sexual molestation of an adolescent for the abuse it is, instead of the 'coming-of-age' experience many [gays] regard it as being. Until then, the Gay Elite will continue to promote a culture of alcohol and drug abuse, sexual promiscuity, and suicide by AIDS. (Ibid., 90. 99)
(Tony Perkins Washington Update via Email) People who were predicting a photo finish for same-sex "marriage" in New York were surprised to see the bill limp over the finish line yesterday after a monster victory for conservatives. The Senate vote was so lopsided--38 to 24--that even Republicans were shocked by the final tally. The bill's sponsor, Gov. David Paterson (D), who may have pushed the issue into an early grave, was stunned by the beating the legislation took in a Senate controlled by liberal Democrats. A 14-vote margin is "pretty substantial," Paterson told reporters. So substantial, in fact, that it may give New Jersey's leaders all the ammunition they need to bury their same-sex "marriage" bill this session.
Against his better judgment, Gov. Paterson forced a vote on the issue just one month after Maine voters turned out en force to repeal a similar bill in their state. And just up the road from Albany, New Yorkers had also made their feelings known on the issue in District 23's special election, a race that forced a liberal Republican to drop out over her support for homosexual "marriage." Obviously, these senators counted the political costs before doing the bidding of the radical Left. They're finally learning that it doesn't pay to go against the American people. Those who do should be prepared to lose a lot more than gay "marriage."
As Washington, DC's city council moves closer to legalizing homosexual "marriage," a Christian organization is raising a warning flag.
The DC Election Board has refused an initiative to put the marriage issue before voters. Alan Wisdom of the Institute on Religion & Democracy tells OneNewsNow the city council was offered amendments to protect religious groups, but opted to reject them. "We at the Institute are warning that this really shows the trajectory of same-sex marriage," notes Wisdom. "The initial appeal is for tolerance, but ultimately same-sex marriage becomes tyranny that is imposed upon Christians and others who support traditional marriage, and they are forced in various ways to accept same-sex marriage." The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington, which provides many social services in DC, has told the council it will stand by its faith, meaning it might have to drop some of its services. "Catholic charities and other Christian organizations would have to provide benefits to same-sex partners of employees as if they were married," Wisdom explains. "They would have to be willing to place children for adoption with same-sex couples. If they have a marriage counseling program, they would have to open it to same-sex couples and support their relationships."
In essence, Wisdom says the city council is willing to bow to less than three percent of the population and turn against the faith community.
7 MM Magnum by, Jake Swiftarrow, Sports Slayer 11-05-09
I hate the Yankees! I love Capitalism. Therein lays the quandary. I love that Yankees can outspend every other team in Major League Baseball in dramatic fashion because they have the means to do it, but it also disgusts me. Full disclosure: Angel fan here. Nevertheless, as Larry Kudlow would proudly declare, “free market capitalism is the best road to prosperity.” Besides, rooting against a team is as much fan as rooting for a team. I love it when the Yankees lose. Go underdog! Unless, of course, the underdog is playing my beloved Angels who have the 6th highest payroll in the league. Too bad for the other 20+ teams that don’t spend as much as the Angels! Sell more hot dogs. Again, capitalism carries the day. Congrats to the roid taking, Dom drinking, Madonna humping Yankees and their rude, obnoxious, subway riding, homeless cursing, thin pizza making, go @#$% yourself fans on their 27 World Championship. See you next year fat cats.
Gay Marriage lost a crucial vote in Maine yesterday. Wow! The Moose, who outnumber the people in Maine, must have turned out for the vote. I thought this was a no brainer victory for same sexers. I guess people are worried how many doors must open under the pretense of “We love each other. Give us the same rights.” People, and moose, might be afraid that if you green light certain forms of marriage because of “love and equality” that many alternative forms of marriage must then become acceptable. Can you say a human and a moose?
David Beckham is going back to Real Madrid on loan from the Los Angeles Galaxy. Does anybody care? Give me football not a freak show. Give me football players, not hipster prima donnas. And if you read Victoria Beckham’s diet book, you sir or ma’am, are the reason the psychiatry business is so lucrative.
Barbara Boxer and the Dems passed a Global Warming, errrr Climate Change bill without any Republicans present. Those dam Republicans wanted a cost-benefit analysis to gauge costs to taxpayers. Those fiscally conservative punks should just drop their brains and step away from the legislative table before anyone gains knowledge. Look for skyrocketing energy costs and business closures. Another day in office for the Dems, another day closer to disaster for common folk. I heard it told the other day that if the Republicans are the party of the rich, then isn’t it in their best interest to keep their constituents rich? If that’s true, then if the Democrats are the party of the poor, isn’t it in the Democrat leadership’s best interest to keep their constituents poor? Take that home and chew it.
"We're not married, Let's get that straight. We have a civil partnership. I don't want to be married! I'm very happy with a civil partnership. The word 'marriage,' I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."
Tammy Bruce -- a pro-choice lesbian, agrees with Elton John as explained in this article on her site, "Gay Marriage: Why Not?" (there is a more in-depth link that is connected with the article):
The political debate rumbles on, and we've heard the principle arguments repeated endlessly: On one hand, the right of gays to seek the same legal protections available to straights, and on the other hand, the mainstream desire to preserve an ancient and fundamental institution. Perhaps there's a more appropriate way to look at this. Seems to me there's an element of narcissism on both sides of the standard argument: On one hand, MY rights; on the other hand, MY tradition. But maybe it's not about YOU. Marriage may make us happy (or miserable, as the case may be), but its primary purpose is to create a stable environment into which children will be born and nurtured through adolescence. Certainly both our statistics and common sense tell us that children do vastly better if they grow up with loving parents, a mother and a father. For this reason, I'd rather view the battle for marriage as a children's rights issue, rather than a ME ME MINE issue.
Looked at from this perspective, the problem with gay marriage isn't that it's objectively any worse than (and it may actually be better than) the broken homes and single parents and all the other indications that modern marriage is a ruined institution. The problem with gay marriage is fundamentally symbolic: It's the societal acknowledgement of how far marriage has fallen. If not for the specter of gay marriage, we could continue to pretend that we're still functional. We could pay our hypocritical respects to our ideal, even if that ideal no longer translates into any semblance of reality.
If you get past the politics and the rants, you'll hear many conservative Christians acknowledge as much. They understand that winning the battle against gay marriage doesn't mean a thing unless marriage itself once again becomes respected and meaningful.
Just as the 2nd Amendment wasn't adopted to protect your right to hunt, so the institution of marriage wasn't created to deliver spousal health insurance and inheritance. Don't let the politics distract you from the big picture. This battle is in one place but the war is elsewhere.
In ancient times before Abraham, pagans sacrificed their children to idols. This is a matter of historical record. Then, as our tradition would have it, God gave us the example of Abraham and Isaac to declare an end to ritual human slaughter. In our modern, enlightened era, it seems we've created a new form of child sacrifice. Children have become disposable. Most of us know this is our fundamental problem. Some say that the government must step in and pick up the slack with day care and the like. Others argue that the parental commitment must be enforced. The liberal/conservative divide forms roughly along these lines. This is where the war is.
Bottom line: If we've lost marriage, then it really doesn't matter what becomes of gay marriage. Think about this before you jump back into the culture war.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling by four of the seven justices that the state must allow gays full marriage rights by May 17th raises a myriad of questions that some are afraid to ask in this time of political correctness run amok.
First and foremost of those questions is who said gays want to get married in the first place? Lets look at the numbers. The highest number of same sex households in America is ironically in Massachusetts, however even then it is under 2 per cent of all households. If gays make up five to ten per cent of the population as is often claimed, one would expect this number to be five times larger.
As distressing as the state of the American family is today with the high rate of divorce and adultery, the situation is far less stable among gays. This is not a slur against gays as individuals, but rather the reality of what occurs when you have what I call the all gas and no brake environment of male/male sexuality. I should know. I am a gay male.
To say that unfortunately the gay world is in a general state of hyper-sexuality that is not conducive to relationships which marriage was intended to foster is to put it mildly. Further, almost all of the issues the gay left claims it is justifiably concerned about like property, health, and financial partnership issues have already been dealt with by many states and can be dealt with through further legislation as needed. Such legal changes would encounter far less political opposition.
Why then the seeming obsession by the gay left and their activist judicial allies like the Massachusetts justices to force gay marriage on an unwilling public?
There is an answer.
Forcing a change to an institution as fundamental and established by civilization as marriage is deemed by gay activists and other cultural liberals as the equivalent of the Good Housekeeping seal of approval for homosexuality itself. The reasoning goes that if someone can marry someone of the same sex then being gay is as acceptable and normal as being short or tall.
While I certainly do not think people should be judged by who they choose to love or how they choose to live their lives, the cultural liberals in America are after more than that. They want to force others to accept their social view, and declare all those who might have an objection to their social agenda to be bigots, racists, and homophobes to be scorned and forced into silence.
The gay left has still not matured into a position of self-empowerment, but is still committed by and large to the idea that the rest of society must bless being gay in every way imaginable. This includes public parades in all major cities to remind everyone else of what some people like to do in their private bedrooms while in the same breath demanding to be left alone.
What more certifiable blessing than state sanctioned marriage of two men or two women, even for a group that has offered no indication that most even desire to enter into the kind of commitments that marriage ideally entails, or that serves the real purpose of marriage. Marriage exists in order to create a stable and structured environment for couples to reproduce and raise their offspring.
And so we have come to yet another chapter in the story of those who would portray themselves as victims in need of another sanction from the state. This time the price of social acceptance of gays is the redefinition of an institution that is thousands of years old and a cornerstone of society. Does that really seem like a wise and prudent choice for America to make at the wish of a handful of judges, and at the behest of those whose real goals are more political than anything else?
Al Rantel is a radio talk show host on Los Angeles' KABC.
Paul Nathanson, a sociologist, a scholar, and a homosexual writes that there are at least five functions that marriage serves--things that every culture must do in order to survive and thrive. They are:
Foster the bonding between men and women
Foster the birth and rearing of children
Foster the bonding between men and children
Foster some form of healthy masculine identity
Foster the transformation of adolescents into sexually responsible adults
Note that Nathanson considers these points critical to the continued survival of any culture. He continues "Because heterosexuality is directly related to both reproduction and survival, ... every human societ[y] has had to promote it actively . ... Heterosexuality is always fostered by a cultural norm" that limits marriage to unions of men and women. He adds that people "are wrong in assuming that any society can do without it."
